Future historians studying the decline and fall of the American Empire will probably focus on George W. Bush's disastrous Iraqi adventurethe modern-day equivalent of Alcibiades' Sicilian expeditionto explain the pathology of a global hyper-power. However, while Iraq has been, beyond any doubt, a significant factor in depleting Imperial power, it is arguably not the conflict that destroyed the Empire's authority. Since it is the authority that marks the difference between the State and a gang of street thugs (i.e. the perception of legitimacy in the use of force by the populace against which it is being used), its loss is much harder for an Empire to recover from.
Before there was Iraq, there was Kosovoanother "war of choice," another war of aggression against all international law, national constitutions and alliance charters, waged to show the world that the United States and its NATO military arm asserted the right to attack anyone, anywhere, for whatever reason. It was packaged and sold as a "humanitarian" war, waged to "prevent genocide" and "stop ethnic cleansing." There was nothing humanitarian about targeting civilian infrastructure. There was no genocide. And the ethnic cleansing that ended up taking place was the expulsion of Serbs, Jews and Roma from the "liberated" provincemuch as the Jews, Christians, and others who ended up in the "wrong" areas became refugees from "liberated" Iraq.
For those who believe what the Muslims believe themselves, that the Qur'an has never changed and Muslims obey the commandments of Allah and the practices of Muhammed the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow, here's a little wake-up call for what's coming down the pike when these masters of deception (religion of peace, et cetera) finally reach their magical (Qur'an dictated) number or critical mass where they feel all-out war on the infidels is mandated by their God.
They may start slowly, but once their blood thirst reaches it's heights, those heads will roll...
The Skull Tower (Serbian: Ćele Kula) is a monument to 19th century Serbian rebels. It is situated in Niš, on Zoran Đinđić Boulevard, on the old Constantinople road leading to Sofia.On May 31, 1809 on Čegar Hill a few kilometers northeast of Niš, Serbian insurrectionists suffered their greatest defeat in the First Serbian Uprising against the Ottoman Empire (1804-1813). The insurrectionists' advance towards Niš was stopped here and, when the far stronger Turkish forces attacked, the battle was ended by the Serbian commander Stevan Sinđelić, who sacrificially fired at his gunpowder depot in order to avoid surrendering to the Turks, killing himself, the rest of his men, and the advancing Turks. After the retreat of the Serbian rebel army, the Turkish commander of Niš, Hurshid Pasha, ordered that the heads of the killed Serbians were to be mounted on a tower to serve as a warning to any other would-be revolutionaries. In all, 952 skulls were included, with the skull of Sindjelić placed at the top. The scalps from the skulls were stuffed with cotton and sent to Constantinople (modern Istanbul) as proof for Sultan Mahmud II.
The tower stood in the open air until the liberation of Niš in 1878. By that time, much of the tower had deteriorated from weather conditions or from the removal of skulls for burial by relatives of killed rebels. In 1892, with donations gathered from all over Serbia, a graceful chapel designed by the Belgrade architect Dimitrije T. Leko was built to enclose what was left of the tower. Today, only 58 skulls remain, including Sindjelić's one.
In front of the chapel stands the monument to Sinđelić, and a small relief depicting the battle, both from 1937. The monument commemorating the battle in the form of a guard tower was built in 1927 on Čegar Hill by Julian Djupon. The lower part is made out of stone from the Niš fortress.
If this warning gto all and sunder be fearmongering, so be it. Contemporary culture only seems to want to complain about who knew what and when AFTER the fact, while sunning themselves and gorging on fluff, self-satisfied and petulent in the lead up to the very worst fears of their lives. But the signs are everywhere that something really bad in terms of war and mayhem is on its way. Now that we've all had a taste of rainy day women, don't say you weren't warned.
Remember, it's not the pious moderate Muslim you need to be concerned about. It's the pious moderate Muslim who changes his approach in a twinkling of a cobra's eye that should concern you.
Yes, I'm feeling rather bellicose this today. So I appeal to history for justification of this concern.
Lest some of us reject the ancient past as bridge under the water pulp, let's have a closer look at Jihad in the Modern Age covering the 20th and 21st Centuries to date:
Here are six compelling paragraphs by Archimedes2:
Language stands in our way here. Although this article hits much closer to the mark, there is still an impediment to identifying the true nature of the enemy in that it is slighly misidentified. The word "terrorist" is very abused these days, and one envisions here a group that willy-nilly tosses money and resources, or agitates in favour of, groups that bomb teenagers in coffee shops and commuters on trains or fly planes into buildings.
It is this stereotype that will lead such articles to ridicule. For, although the Ikhwan (Muslim Brotherhood) has in the past been directly involved in such activity and now is more covertly involved in supporting groups like Hamas, they can legitimately claim not to support or validate attacks in the West (or, at least they can argue that this is an unfair characterization of their work and goals).
It is important that we describe clearly and precisely what these folks are up to. They would be quite happy, if possible, to set up a Caliphate in the U.S. and eliminate the constitution, without shedding a drop of blood. To simply characterize them as "terrorist" or "pro-terrorist" is facile and at best only close to the mark.
The Ikhwan are radical, vehement islamists bent on world domination. That this puts them in bed with some terrorist groups is true, but they are careful about with whom they associate. You can pin them down on Hamas, but they will argue that this is a legitimate government group or "freedom fighters".
But you can not successfully associate them with ... say, Al Qaeda. Read the Ikhwan literature: they are quite clear that, although they share many common objectives with Osama's army, they condemn them outright as unislamic and an illegal breakaway group. If pushed the right way they may even say that Osama is Takfir.
They have no qualms about condemning jihadist groups, and their actions, if they are not affiliated with those groups. So, to come out guns-blazing and saying the Ikhwan is out and out terrorist, or even pro-terrorist, is to play into their hands. They can, and will try to, bring ridicule to such claims. Watch how they handle these proceedings, particularly when it comes to anyone who oversimplifies by calling them terrorists instead of focussing on their agenda and subversive activities.
Read more...[The Art Of War, Muslim Style]